Canada Navy Canada Surface Combatant (CSC) Program

[oldcpu]

Torpedo Defence System for the River Class: Sea Sensor & Expendable Acoustic Countermeasures. Sea Spider ???

Note the Canadian government info graphic on the River Class Destroyer lists the "Towed Torpedo Countermeasures - Ultra Electronics SEA SENTOR S21700" and it does not state the Atlas Elektronik "Sea Spider" which some earlier articles that speculated on the Canadian Surface Combatant suggested (more on that in the second half of this post).

Further to this, I note an article in Defence News dated 24-September, which also notes no mention in the infographic of 'Sea Spider" for the River Class destroyer, and further also states no Navy to date has procured the Sea Spider.

European navies chase the white whale of torpedo-busting torpedoes

Germany and the Netherlands are banking on a European Union project to field a workable defensive system for surface ships by 2030.

www.defensenews.com

Hence while it is possible Sea Spider is still being considered for the Canadian Navy River Class destroyer, it is not apparent to me that this is the case. Rather at present I suspect the opposite (ie no procurement of Sea Spider) is more likely.

 

[oldcpu]

"Additionally, the company's MK20 and MK46 electro-optical (EO) sighting systems are the standard EO narrow field-of-view system for capital ships worldwide. L3Harris provides unmatched imaging from our photonic masts in support of U.S. and Allied Nations. The company leverages its strengths of inherent reliability at the device, component and system level, and coordinates and collaborates throughout the corporation to ensure its products leverage L3Harris' collective knowledge on maritime environments."

... So my updated speculation is this could also be what is being proposed for the River Class destroyer.

I also read in a December 2022 article in Military Aerospace.com that the Mk 20 EOSS purported is utilized with the 5" (127mm) guns aboard the USNavy Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, the Ticoneroga class destroyers, and Coast Guard Offsore Patrol cutter. My understanding is the MK 20 EOSS has technology improvements over the MK-46 OSS.

Further to this speculation, I note an old WarZone article on the Mk20 EOSS which provides more information on its functionality.

U.S. Warships Have This Seldom Discussed But Very Powerful Optical Targeting System

It's easy to overlook the WALL-E-looking turret atop these ships, but it provides key targeting and situational awareness information to the crew.

www.twz.com

As to whether Lockheed Martin/BAE is considering this piece of L3 Harris kit for the River Class Destroyer is pure speculation by myself.

 

[oldcpu]

3. Lockheed Martin (LM)-Mk 53 Mod 1 Nulka Electronic Warfare Suite System & Anti-Ship Missile (ASM) launchers through FMS/Aegis.

With regards to the Nulka, here is a link to the Lockheed Martin advertising brochure (PDF):

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/electronic-warfare/Nulka-Brochure.pdf

Further to that brochure one can read a defense.info article where purported the Nulka has been used in actual combat

Updating the Nulka Anti-Ship Defense System | Defense.info

Almost a decade before an Argentinian Exocet missile speared into the side of British warship HMS Sheffield during the Falklands War, Australian defence scientists had figured there had to be something better than guns, missiles, and chaff to protect ships against sea-skimming missiles. The May...

defense.info

That article also provides a bit more specific information on functionality details that are not as clear in the advertising brochure. It speculates on DRFM, RGPO and VGPO functions possibly being incorporated in the Nulka (but obviously as to whether RGPO/VGPO included is the case, is speculation).

 

[oldcpu]

I have not read any unclassified sources claiming Raven being interfaced to Aegis in the past. If one looks at the info graphic sketch, the antenna for the Raven, which could be observed in earlier speculative sketches of the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC), are not observable in the most recent Canadian Department of Defence sketches. One could speculate that means ..... (3) Raven ECM is not included as part of the River Class destroyer procurement .....

Further to this, I note:

https://www.jedonline.com/2024/10/22/canada-looks-to-us-navy-for-non-developmental-ew-for-csc/

That is an article from Jedonline about the Electronic Warfare system anticipated to be installed in the River Class destroyer.

The article notes that:

"one consequence of the modified acquisition approach is the original bespoke EW solution has been dropped at least from the first three ships. Instead Lockheed Martin's AN/SLQ-32(V)6 RESM system - introduced to the US Navy under SEWIP Block 2 and already integrated with Aegis - is to be acquired through Foreign military sales(FMS).

In addition, Raven onboard EA system and the NGDS decoy launcher have been shelved from the program. Instead the River-class ships will receive an off-board EA capability through the integration of the BAE Systems Nukla active missile decoy system (again supplied through FMS).

 

[oldcpu]

On the subject of the SPY-7 radar system that the Canadian Navy intends to procure for its planned Aegis-equipped River Class Destroyers, I note "the Japan Times" reports on some words that the Royal Canadian Navy Commander Vice Adm.Angus Topshee purportedly stated:

The commander also said he supports the possibility that Canada, Japan and Spain form a "users group" for the state-of-the-art, US made SPY-7 radar system all three countries will be fitting onto some of their Aegis-equipped warships.

Toshee said the countries would like to work together to share information on how the radar system operates, as well as sequence demands for parts and maintenance.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/11/04/japan/canada-navy-commander-interview/

 

[oldcpu]

Why was Sea Ceptor dumped from Canadian Surface Combatant? | Defence Observer

The Sea Ceptor was supposed to be critical to protecting 15 new warships. DND has been extremely vague about why this plan has changed.

defenceobserver.ca

A November-2024 "Defence Observer" article asks the question "Why was Sea Ceptor dumped from Canadian Surface Combatant?"

The article claims "there are reports that the RIM-116 will be cheaper as it is used by the US Navy and other navies".

The article also claims that Canadian Department of National Defence provided an answer of sorts to the Defence Observer question, where:

Department spokeswoman Andrée-Anne Poulin said Sea Ceptor was replaced “due to integration risk.”

Due to the need for secrecy, it can be difficult to know the full story, but for certain if additional development is needed for interfaces/integration, there will be some level of cost and integration risk - as opposed to a system that has already had successful integration.
.

 

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

Why was Sea Ceptor dumped from Canadian Surface Combatant? | Defence Observer

The Sea Ceptor was supposed to be critical to protecting 15 new warships. DND has been extremely vague about why this plan has changed.

defenceobserver.ca

A November-2024 "Defence Observer" article asks the question "Why was Sea Ceptor dumped from Canadian Surface Combatant?"

The article claims "there are reports that the RIM-116 will be cheaper as it is used by the US Navy and other navies".

The article also claims that Canadian Department of National Defence provided an answer of sorts to the Defence Observer question, where:



Due to the need for secrecy, it can be difficult to know the full story, but for certain if additional development is needed for interfaces/integration, there will be some level of cost and integration risk - as opposed to a system that has already had successful integration.
.

Hello "oldcpu". The reason for the CAAM removal is both interesting and simplistic at the same time. As you may know, when the CSC Frigate design was first envisioned the RIM 116 was also a part of the design on both Port/Stb'd waist areas along with Sea Ceptor midships. It was then decided to not have the RIM 116 as it was thought at the time that the RIM took up some weight and was a redundant system as the CAAM-ER was already there. Yes, the change back to the RIM 116 was a cost-saving measure but also, as you can see the CAAM-ER silos were not removed. It is speculated that this was done because the RCN wanted to use the ER silos midships for other already existing on-board missiles like ESSM to augment the Mk 41 silos lost forward and return the RIM 116 launchers to the waist areas Port/Stb'd for a CIWS. What say you?

 

[oldcpu]

Hello "oldcpu". The reason for the CAAM removal is both interesting and simplistic at the same time. As you may know, when the CSC Frigate design was first envisioned the RIM 116 was also a part of the design on both Port/Stb'd waist areas along with Sea Ceptor midships. It was then decided to not have the RIM 116 as it was thought at the time that the RIM took up some weight and was a redundant system as the CAAM-ER was already there. Yes, the change back to the RIM 116 was a cost-saving measure but also, as you can see the CAAM-ER silos were not removed. It is speculated that this was done because the RCN wanted to use the ER silos midships for other already existing on-board missiles like ESSM to augment the Mk 41 silos lost forward and return the RIM 116 launchers to the waist areas Port/Stb'd for a CIWS. What say you?

I have not tracked the procurement history of the Canadian Surface Combatant since inception but rather only recently started looking at such.

In regards to the Sea Ceptor, I recall an old Navy News 2021 article where purportedly MBDA issued a press release that they had been awarded a contract to equip the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) with the Sea Ceptor. That old article speculates the Sea Ceptor would have been launched from Lockheed Martin's Extensible Launching System (ExLS) midships.

I do note a Lockheed Martin Brochure ( https://www.lockheedmartin.com/cont..._ExLS_Launcher_Product_Card_8.5x11_042419.pdf ) that claims Lockheed Martin and MBDA-UK co-developed and qualified the ExLS 3-cell standalone launcher for the Sea Ceptor CAAM (based on the Mk41 VLS). I assume that if the ExLS does not incorporate the UK CAMM canister, then as a Mk41 launcher derivative it could be used to launch the ESSM. That is an assumption of mine - I do not know if accurate.

In regards to MBDA obtaining a Sea Ceptor contract, my recollection is that typically, if a contract is awarded, it can cost money to cancel the contract, unless the contract had one or more a specific clauses that at some future point(s) it could be cancelled based on initially agreed criteria.

But as noted, I have not spent time looking at this. I have no insight into the Canadian Navy cost/function/performance decisions as to what systems to procure. I trust the Canadian Naval procurement staff, together with Lockheed Martin, are making the best decisions that they can, given all other factors.

I do recall from about 40-years ago working on Naval warship sensor and weapon integration, that interfacing different systems together can be costly, and can either improve or reduce a weapon and sensor system's overall contribution to warship functionality, dependent on how well the interface is implemented. Such costs and efforts also needs to be considered as part of the specific sensors and weapons procurement decisions.

 

[k.numbers]

Lockheed Martin's booth at Euronaval 2024 was showing off the River Class Destroyer and the SPY-7 radar. Their River Class model had 32 mk41 VLS cells forward of the bridge. Not sure if it's an old model or a model based on the design changes for batch 2.

Video link to Naval News' interview with Lockheed Martin at the expo:

Euronaval 2024

Edit: I'm leaning towards old model, it also did not have the RIM-116 launchers. I couldn't tell if the ExLS cells were in the model or not.

 

[oldcpu]

Lockheed Martin's booth at Euronaval 2024 was showing off the River Class Destroyer and the SPY-7 radar. Their River Class model had 32 mk41 VLS cells forward of the bridge. Not sure if it's an old model or a model based on the design changes for batch 2.

Video link to Naval News' interview with Lockheed Martin at the expo:

Euronaval 2024

Edit: I'm leaning towards old model, it also did not have the RIM-116 launchers. I couldn't tell if the ExLS cells were in the model or not.

Thanks for that link.

The model in that video for the River Class appears to be old.

For example, I note it has the antenna for the Raven ECM system on its mast, and from what I have read (at least for the first three River class) the Raven ECM is not planned to be included.

 

[k.numbers]

Happy to contribute!

Yeah, you're right it does look like an old model. The mast and radar surfaces look like the most recent renderings, but everything else looks like the original concept and model that was first released in 2019 or 2020.

 

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

Lockheed Martin's booth at Euronaval 2024 was showing off the River Class Destroyer and the SPY-7 radar. Their River Class model had 32 mk41 VLS cells forward of the bridge. Not sure if it's an old model or a model based on the design changes for batch 2.

Video link to Naval News' interview with Lockheed Martin at the expo:

Euronaval 2024

Edit: I'm leaning towards old model, it also did not have the RIM-116 launchers. I couldn't tell if the ExLS cells were in the model or not.

Yes, "k.numbers". You are absolutely correct. That is an older display of the CSC River class Destroyer model. You can tell very quickly by the older mast height. That was when Canada first decided to acquire the CAAM-ER silos and the went back to the RIM 116 recently. I believe the RCN will retain the ExLS launchers for more ESSM's use which the silos can accommodate. Cheers!

 

[oldcpu]

, the change back to the RIM 116 was a cost-saving measure but also, as you can see the CAAM-ER silos were not removed. It is speculated that this was done because the RCN wanted to use the ER silos midships for other already existing on-board missiles like ESSM to augment the Mk 41 silos lost forward and return the RIM 116 launchers to the waist areas Port/Stb'd for a CIWS.

On the topic of the RIM 116, I recall reading reporting in various news sources that the German frigate Hessen used a RIM-116 based system to defend the warship against a UAV attack (for example "The WarZone" article):

German Frigate That Fought Off Houthi Drones Heads Home After 58 Days

The Hessen repelled four Houthi drone attacks during its deployment but also accidentally targeted a U.S. Reaper drone.

www.twz.com

which reported :

The ship downed two Houthi drones at close range while operating in the Red Sea on Feb. 27, Germany’s Joint Forces Operations Command confirmed on Twitter at the time.
....
Hessen intercepted the first drone using its 76mm deck gun, German defense ministry spokesperson Michael Stempfle told reporters during a media conference at the time, Reuters reported. The second drone was shot down using a RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile. The two drones were supposedly “recognized by the radar system and had a different range ... That’s why two different weapons were used.”

which I find good to note that the system has been proven to successfully work in ' real world' conditions.

 

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

On the topic of the RIM 116, I recall reading reporting in various news sources that the German frigate Hessen used a RIM-116 based system to defend the warship against a UAV attack (for example "The WarZone" article):

German Frigate That Fought Off Houthi Drones Heads Home After 58 Days

The Hessen repelled four Houthi drone attacks during its deployment but also accidentally targeted a U.S. Reaper drone.

www.twz.com

which reported :


which I find good to note that the system has been proven to successfully work in ' real world' conditions.

It is an excellent & proven system "oldcpu" and will be a great addition , again, for the River Class Destroyers to combat any close range UAV attacks! It is not known yet what Laser systems the River Class will acquire for "future proofing"

 

[oldcpu]

Further to this speculation, I note an old WarZone article on the Mk20 EOSS which provides more information on its functionality.

U.S. Warships Have This Seldom Discussed But Very Powerful Optical Targeting System

It's easy to overlook the WALL-E-looking turret atop these ships, but it provides key targeting and situational awareness information to the crew.

www.twz.com

As to whether Lockheed Martin/BAE is considering this piece of L3 Harris kit for the River Class Destroyer is pure speculation by myself.

As I noted previously, if I had to speculate (perhaps "hope" might be a better word), I would speculate that the River Class destroyer could get the L3Harris Mk 20 shipboard EOSS. Digital Military Aerospace has a couple of articles of interest, such as:

L3Harris to provide electro-optics sensors fire control for warship deck guns and Digital Military Aerospace article (entitled L3Harris to provide electro-optical sights to keep surface ship guns on target where from one of those articles I quote:

The EOSS electro-optics system is a check sight and targeting sensor for anti-surface and anti-air warfare and naval gun fire support missions,
...
The MK 20 EOSS has digital stabilization with fiber-optic gyros, a separate eye-safe laser rangefinder with diode-pumped laser, enhanced built-in test, and improved sensor-to-sensor boresight alignment.
...
To integrate with the MK 34 deck gun, the EOSS has a new interface electronics unit (IEU) that interfaces with as many as two deck gun computers and three deck gun consoles to provide video, target bearing and range, and system status data to all three, while taking commands from any one, L3Harris officials say.

However, I have not read yet of the Mk20 EOSS ever having been interfaced with the Leonardo OTO 127 mm (5 in)/64 LW Vulcano naval gun nor interfaced with the Leonardo Lionfish 30 mm (1.2 in) autocannons. Hence it has me wondering (if my speculation correct) as to how well the L3 Harris supplied EOSS will be interfaced to the overall combat system in regards to support to the Leonardo supplied 127mm and Leonardo supplied 30mm.